By Joseph Andrew Settanni
But, is it really worth the price of the ecclesiastical civil war called schism?
Admittedly, it is difficult trying to properly grasp the full nature of a pop culture figure who happens to be a widely known religious leader of many hundreds of millions of people, the presumed believers. Popularity, as a result, can often so obscure the true image of such a public figure, a dramatic character, who looms rather large upon the world stage.
As is known (or should be), Francis, an egoist, is the first pope of his kind by being a Jesuit pope and coming from Latin America, from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first non-European Vicar of Christ since the days of that Syrian Pope Gregory III who had reigned from 731 to 741 AD. His unique nature inordinately bolsters his expansive pride of self and disproportionate sense of historical importance, besides, e. g., existential or phenomenological considerations as to the Papacy itself.
Necessarily, misjudgments are, on average, not just simply possible but fairly predictable as a direct consequence of not fully appreciating and seriously analyzing the weighty reality of the person being confronted, intellectually and otherwise. The indicative matter to be most clearly and significantly focused upon concerns what appears to be a totally neglected issue, namely, the great horror of degeneracy, both theological and religious being here entirely inclusive. How is this critically meant?A Frightening Sight to Behold: Medusa
Most (deficient) analyses of the current Vicar of Christ either wish to charge him with some degrees of Communist influence or, alternately, deny fundamentally such influence. Both miss the deeper reality, the true moral ugliness, involved. The man is a confirmed heretic, not just a neo-Marxist. The best way, thus, to intellectually and honestly approach Francis is to understand that his central religious view is a neo-Pelagian one, and it has had negative consequences; this is meaning as to the ultimate heresy he so prefers, while it is true, in addition, that he has congenially embraced other heresies as well no doubt.
In brief, the original heresy goes back to its basis in Pelagianism; in essence, it is the haughty denial of the pernicious results of the existence of Original Sin, though other features were, of course, attendant to the theologically radical, heterodox, thinking of the heretic priest Pelagius (354 – 420 AD). This British troublemaker, also called a moralist, had made a name for himself in Rome with his God-defiant thinking seen in his so terribly perverse soteriological speculations, especially that Jesus Christ was not really important concerning salvation.
He openly rejected the Augustinian idea of predestination and, instead, declared adamantly in favor of an absolutist version of the doctrine of free will. People, he preached, can simply attain their salvation by, in effect, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, the exaltation of the self. Pelagius had totally denied the need for the requirement of divine aid, meaning grace, in the performance of any good works.
Human nature was not, therefore, ever corrupted by Original Sin and, thus, people could, by their mere will, fulfill the entire law of moral conduct and attain spiritual perfection, moreover, without any need for divine grace whatsoever. Metaphysical order, for Pelagius, was made basically superfluous as to the possibilities of Man, when the orthodox theocentric viewpoint is rejected in favor of a seemingly vibrant anthropocentricism.
The Pelagians, being obvious proto-Protestants, referred to Deuteronomy 24:16 in public affirmation of their obviously radical and scriptural position against fundamental Christianity. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Council of Carthage, recognizing a religious deviant when they clearly saw one, had so naturally declared him a heretic. Thereafter, this Pelagian/heretical interpretation of the assumed doctrine of free will was then denominated as Pelagianism.
Among others, Calvinism and Arminianism, of course, are logically and necessarily related to the noted basic foundation of this rather pivotal ancient heresy attacking the very foundations of (orthodox) Christianity and, thus, creating a crisis. Moral law, according to the Church, is meant to inform and strengthen the human conscience, not to be set at war against it as the modernists would so wrongly have it.
The Roman Catholic Church, for many centuries, was fortunately able to suppress Pelagianism, until its reification had occurred, at the infamous and notorious Second Vatican Council. Ideological influences crept into the brains of the dedicated modernists at the Council, particularly the pernicious doctrines of Hegelianism as to thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which relates back to philosophical nominalism in general, of course.
The ideologized version of the heresy is seen in neo-Pelagianism, which was sustained and reinforced by Hegelianism, and was so willingly embraced by the future Pope Francis who had imbibed freely in the Spirit of Vatican II way back in the mid-1960s. Thus, he is, quite manifestly for those who presciently know, a neo-Pelagian Pope who seeks to reconstruct the Church into an image more suitable to his personal deviant wishes and heterodox opinions, regardless of the highly sorrowful cost to religious purity and theological sanctity. This needs to be firmly accepted as being true, otherwise, misinterpretations will logically occur.
Almost all commentators on the Holy Pontiff, however, do not know this very vital fact as to the correct interpretation, understanding, and comprehension of this current Bishop of Rome. It is, in this sense, quite superficial to just label him either a “Marxist” or “neo-Marxist” and to move on to other matters. This is too simplistic, as is, also, the bold denial of his often noted Communist leanings.
While it is surely true that he is an overt supporter of neo-Marxist Liberation Theology, with all of its own implications and ramifications attendant thereto, yet, that realization stops far short of the much deeper roots of the truly radical-heretical thinking and cognate prejudices that do directively guide his (perverse) thoughts, words, and actions.
After all, one can insightfully perceive that it is not any “Communism” that provokes his sympathies toward embracing aspects of Lutheranism for the Quincentennial of the Protestant Revolution, rather, he is strongly attracted to the Pelagian elements within Lutheranism. This refers to the Lutheran denial that good works are necessary for salvation, thus, axiomatically also excluding any need for divine grace connected to such works.
Pope Francis, logically, has an ideological and strong spiritual affinity for many heresies to the cognate extent that they may have their (destructive) roots in Pelagianism, which all fully reinforces his great and observed hatred of Roman Catholic theological orthodoxy. One can see that immanentism, that vain attack upon being defined by metaphysical order, subtly undergirds the thinking elaborated that celebrates nominalism, by obliterating objectivity in moral and other questions; and so, this is to be evilly done through wrongly seeking to “creatively” illegitimate dogmatic ecclesial knowledge, which is yet preeminently demonic in its covert aspirations, of course.
Nothing less, sad to say here, is now being immorally attempted forcefully by this quite miscreant Holy Father and those worldly-minded ecclesiastics allied to him who are most certainly secular-oriented accommodationists, Protestant-minded appeasers. Thus, as Christopher Ferrara would probably agree, have no doubt that significantly much worse is yet to come that will go well beyond mere indifferentism or latitudinarianism.
Modernism, as was rightly condemned by Pope St. Pius X, will now see its particular dangerous fruition, through a neo-Pelagian orientation toward the Church’s religious activities, based upon a demonically perverted theology having a sinister backwards form of reasoning. Millions of more souls, as a result, are to have a merrier way of going to Hell, through such immoral efforts, done in the name of good intentions and, also, having a relativist regard for redefined “charity, mercy, and compassion,” of course.
The sagacious ability to keenly perceive these highly significant matters clearly and immediately assists in increasing rapidly the profound cognizance highly requisite to properly analyzing various whys and wherefores involved in past, current, and future decision making by the Pope. He is, e. g., never really acting in any supposedly fashionable obstreperous or, perhaps, oddly cantankerous manner by being willful as to suspect actions taken or words spoken; rather, this so quite crafty and cunning prelate is seeking to be deliberately heretical, not accidentally so. One should see certain method in his madness.
There is a definite method to the wrongly assumed or often casually dismissed spontaneity of approach to issues that he very much favors and, therefore, pushes along ever fully athwart orthodox Catholic teachings and doctrines. But, further instructive thought must be here rendered for clarification and substantiation of what actually needs to be ever intelligently noticed.
Failure to see this ugly reality of the perversely subversive mind of the octogenarian Pope Francis is, certainly, tantamount to absurdly believing that, in fact, he really doesn’t mean what he says or does, which is unquestionably not true. Papa Bergoglio, thus, seeks to become a quite dedicated heresiarch as, indeed, was Martin Luther, one of his major religious-cultural heroes.
His neo-Pelagian cognition, the supposed touchstone of all valid truth, both guides and fortifies, directs and sustains, him in his ardent desire and effort to revolutionize Holy Mother Church in a Protestant manner. This will, openly, be observed in his forcefully commendatory words and actions warmly and enthusiastically co-celebrating the Quincentennial of the Protestant Revolution, starting only initially with Lutheranism but, as will be easily seen, not ending there, of course.
The Vicar of Christ is going to imperiously demand, in various ways, that Catholicism more and more vigorously emulate and, thus, help warmly validate the so-called Reformed Religion; and, moreover, let no one naively doubt this plain and presented assertion of fact regarding this papal effort at subversion.
This evil effort is to be directed toward demonically undermining and subverting the Church while, one suspects, protesting that his “good intentions” are pure. The nominalist cause of Protestantism is found worthy, in the eyes of Francis, who takes a syncretistic attitude toward various heresies, as if only mere semantics and not any vital moral substance divides Christians, as a result of the so-called Reformation, which is to be emulated vigorously. What may be properly said?
All the Catholic martyrs loyal to the Counter-Reformation (or Roman Catholic Reformation) must be spinning in their graves by witnessing the many blasphemous and sacrilegious antics of this Argentinian high prelate. The precious and holy blood of the martyrs can only adamantly curse the wicked neo-Pelagianism observed.
Pope Francis, thus, is to be rightly noted as a true champion and paladin of inherent wickedness, of consummate malevolence, aimed contemptuously and deliberately at the Catholic Faith, the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself. Nothing less should be accounted as to the allied intention involved, in actively seeking to demonically subvert Catholicism, by its doctrinal and pastoral dissolution through the cunning practice of artful tergiversation and, in effect, the evident silence of consent.
Some members of the Roman hierarchy, possessing a distaste for heresy, have decided to go public and be the whistle blowers or dissenters from this neo-Protestant Revolution being foisted upon the Roman Catholic Church. Although dissenters such as Christopher Ferrara or whistle blowers are normally, in the popular mind, supposed to be fairly honored and admired figures, the Pope wishes everyone to only hold these people in cold contempt. There is exhibited not merely an unofficial rejection but a firm contempt for theological orthodoxy.
The popular image of a supposedly humble and meek Pope is false, when opposed to his own manifest imperious contempt, a notably prideful one, for those who do disagree vehemently with his extremist opinions, as is presented (by proxy) in such documents as Amoris Laetitia. The mean spiritedness of the vile papal wrath is manifested in the strong climate of fear that exists in the Vatican created by his paranoia and vindictiveness reaching out to vilely infect the entire household of the See of the St. Peter. With mockery, many do refer to him now as the Holy Father, who seeks to make pariahs out of those who theologically and religiously disagree with his “love” for heresy that surely brings him joy.
Submission to Amoris Laetitia is the latest litmus test being applied, by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to all Catholics who are to affirm heretical beliefs for the sake of pleasing the intentions of Vatican policy and, of course, its chief occupant. It is recognized, nonetheless, that judgment can become problematic when seeking to get to the complete justice of judgment concerning a papal reign and the person who is or was the Holy Pontiff.
The Vatican II pontiffs have nearly uniformly neglected their most central role of pastors of the universal Church by diluting orthodoxy such that the existent Catholicism had become incoherent, theologically and doctrinally, in the pursuit of popularity, adulation, praise, and overall fame.
What should have been the central theological focus of authoritatively and righteously affirming the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith to a largely often hostile and indifferent world ought, thus, to have been given the logical top priority; this is, need it be said, as to the everlastingly important mission of salvation; unfortunately, for the sake of the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it was not. This is not to deny, however, that much good had been, in fact, accomplished.
But, the annoying cultic papacies of John Paul II and Francis are diametrically opposite to the always fundamental centrality of the primary concerns and reality of what the Vatican is to represent to the world, not just what Catholicism is generally supposed to be proclaiming.
The popes of the post-Vatican II Era have been degenerates, in the correct epistemological sense meant by C. E. M. Joad, in that they had “lost the object” of what they, essentially, are ever to be about as to Catholic truth, not any quest for wide popularity certainly. How so? They mainly neglected, as does the current holder of the Holy Office, to powerfully exercise their pastoral authority, from the Chair of St. Peter, to reverse mightily the ongoing dissolution of the Church’s teachings and mission. Authority improperly exercised becomes corrupt, as power tends to corrupt, but the lack of using warranted (Catholic) power is degenerate, as is seen particularly in the theological and religious failure of the postconciliar popes to both forcefully and unequivocally defend, e. g., the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ in the world. Q. E. D.
Pope Francis, therefore, is quite obviously a nauseatingly degenerate neo-Pelagian Pontiff publicly and privately exalting himself in his obnoxious status as a papal cult figure. Such is an abusive and so unconscionable status absolutely unworthy of any true Servant of the Servants of Christ and, at the least, corrupts terribly the important fact that he is also the Holy Bishop of Rome of the Church Universal.
He is also an idolater in making the worship, meaning his desires qua theological opinions, greater than the God being worshipped; he has, thus, lost the object. The very stiff attitude being displayed by the current Pontiff will surely, furthermore, lead to the horror of the ecclesiastical civil war called schism, if his intransigence remains vehement and defiant in the sinful cause of willful heterodoxy. It is not just his paranoia being well noticed.
It is, moreover, a blasphemous and sacrilegious scandal of immense scope and magnitude that such a degenerate is, of course, simultaneously and necessarily the Vicar of Christ on earth. One can, legitimately and readily, say that it is appalling almost beyond description to sadly witness such a truly loathsome, vilely despicable, spectacle that makes even the tawdry and nasty reign of Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) look fairly respectable in contrast, for at least that surely unctuous, Renaissance scoundrel and reprobate was, in fact, still orthodox as to his theology.
Although it was a term once used several times by Michelangelo to harshly describe Pope Julius II, the designation of Francis as a “Medusa” is not really that far from the truth, if only people could come to a view of this cultic Pontiff; this is if ever freed from the typical seeing of him through rose-colored glasses, as is normally supplied by the popular media, his clerical supporters, and other such sycophants.
Because of his ethically and morally disreputable theological and religious opinions and advocacy, this Vicar of Christ is, without question, both a living horror and moral monster vilely parading around as an assumed exemplar of papal virtue and related righteousness; he is, in this 21st century, a rather frightening sight to behold, not a model bishop or holy prelate certainly. But, it is still a major significant misjudgment to think, as almost all are wont to do, that the sheer or simple immorality involved is what principally propels the supposed seeming urgency for revolutionizing Church doctrines, in a devilishly backwards manner, through deviant pastoral practice.
Much more is related to this highly sinister effort that makes it not just nasty in its import but thoroughly insidious in its intended consequences and ramifications thereto. How so? Few see very plainly that the modern dynamism of neo-Pelagianism is aided by the Nietzschean transvaluation of values. By cleverly saying that the doctrines are to remain untouched and only practice is to be modified, Francis wishes, so to speak, to now pour new wine into old bottles, a neo-Protestantism, for better fooling people.
This is why, therefore, that the noted Nietzschean element should be keenly kept perceptively in mind; this is when rightly evaluating and intelligently considering the greater fuller context and so more comprehensive implications concerning the important matters discussed. The Holy Father’s paranoid religiosity ought not to excuse him or, always more importantly, his terrible errors of judgment.
The Response to Pope Francis
Most or, perhaps, almost all of the Church appears to be more or less sanguine about the basic direction toward which this Vicar of Christ wishes to lead the entire ecclesiastical body. The proper catechesis of the vast majority of Roman Catholics has been downplayed so extremely, in the last few generations, such that the average believer remains logically clueless as to what the disputes may be about; this is as to their vital substance, indicative implications, and pertinent ramifications as well.
So, the average parishioner can be generally excused from having the necessary theological insights and informed knowledge, regarding various specific doctrinal matters, that now normally do appear quite abstruse, abstract, or, perhaps, just plainly unknown. This should not, in truth, be that surprising at all.
At the time of the writing of this article, there seems to be the reality that the majority or vast majority of the hierarchy is, directly or indirectly, acquiescing and assenting to the many heretical dictates being promulgated; one then sees this is by which pastoral practice, the proverbial “tail,” is to “wag the dog,” meaning the quite sacramental and dogmatic teachings of Holy Mother Church itself.
Francis, as his own existentialist-cultic hero, has set things and matters simultaneously upside down, inside out, and backwards to better absurdly accommodate his ardent neo-Pelagian affectations and necessarily odd heterodox idiosyncrasies. Such many vain and disgusting pomposities, in the harmful antagonisms propounded through so much deceptive language, do offend the Sacred Heart of Jesus, besides gaining the displeasure, one suspects, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mediatrix of all Graces.
These surely pernicious pretensions and egomaniacal eccentricities are, in turn, emblematic, indeed, of profoundly blasphemous and sacrilegious orientations so directed as demonic daggers against the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, that’s all. But, one would think that would be, thus, very easily enough to make frantic alarm bells ring out throughout the Catholic world at large, though this appears not to be the case, sad to say.
Fortunately, the majority of the African bishops are absolutely alert to this most vicious nonsense and theological depravity, besides some bishops and cardinals in the Western realm of the Church. Open resistance and the urgent need to remonstrate vigorously with Francis have been, so far, limited and somewhat, at times, more furtive than typically apparent. One may hope that the struggle will increase, especially as classical Natural Law teachings are not to be neglected.
Some of the hierarchy have gone public with their needed disagreement in the hope of provoking some charitable clarification on the part of the Holy Pontiff, though it seems to be entirely in vain at present; this is when judging the troubling situation by his open desire to be greatly combative, not informative at all.
Antipathy and contempt are, however, ranged against faith and conciliation concerning the evil crisis provoked deliberately by the neo-Pelagian Pope, meaning in his pursuit of unquestioning fidelity toward heterodox pronouncements of questionable doctrinal validity at best. Pastoral practice so-called is to be schizophrenically set athwart the recognized doctrinal and sacramental teachings of the Church as they have been known and taught for, quite literally, many centuries of time.
The teachings of the Church are known. But, Francis the Imperious, filled with pejorative denunciations, seething intolerance, and not exactly the healthy spirit of good Christian charity, will have none of this. May God have mercy on his soul.
Cardinal Raymond Burke, along with Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, submitted the Dubia, a statement asking five yes or no questions, in September 2016, looking for clarity from Pope Francis on whether the exhortation Amoris Laetitia genuinely conforms to Catholic moral teaching. This response is energetic and deferential, of course, but not really forceful enough given the very important exigency concerned, meaning the crisis that, in fact, has been so wrongly created by the Holy Sovereign Pontiff.
When the Pope failed to issue any expected response after about two months, the cardinals then felt the added moral and spiritual need to release the Dubia publicly, which the Holy Father then took as a figurative slap in the face. At all times, proper procedures were taken in accordance with Canon Law provisions with many prayers given, no doubt, for his salvation. But, he yet took it as an unkind rebuke.
After this very valid attempt at both respectful and courteous dialogue proved fully useless of results, Cardinal Burke courageously disclosed that an instituted formal act of correction would, therefore, be made appropriately necessary; this was, of course, if the Pope was both determinedly recalcitrant and had still declined to properly elucidate the true sense or meaning of his at least ambiguous exhortation. Cardinal Burke, contrary to some of his pro- Bergoglio critics, is not the one being schismatic regarding this critical matter; in fact, the direct contrary, however, seems much more logically to be true.
While obviously exceptional, this advocated matter, as to an attempted admonition seeking a true recantation of erroneous papal opinions, is not at all without historical precedent, as in the prominent case, e. g., of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316 to 1334) occurring in the 14th century. John submitted, and he recanted his errors concerning the Holy Beatific Vision. A crisis in the Church was, thus, amicably and correctly solved toward an appropriate solution authentically preserving the complete integrity of the Papacy and, much more importantly, the eternally valued Honor of the Holy Lord God. The hurt feelings of John XXII did not matter nor should that be a consideration about Francis.
It is highly doubtful, given now what is publicly known of the excessively vindictive and so haughtily prideful nature of Francis, if he ever would. This small-minded and too petty Vicar of Christ, being a dedicated, neo-Pelagian stalwart of the worst sort imaginable, holds the Honor of God in cold contempt, so why should he care? Also, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, fully supports the Pope’s heterodox position on communion for certain categories of divorced Catholics.
As yet another prominent example, Cardinal Schönborn insists that Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is a great catechesis on marital and familial love that all Catholics ought to admire and embrace. Cardinal Müller, in addition, has stated that there is to be no required correction of the Pope because there Is, in his opinion, no danger at all to the Faith.
Unless a Church council should convene to depose Francis, nothing short of his death – or some kind of a small miracle — could actually come to successfully resolve this quite terrible crisis, for there is no real or substantive humility present within his hardened heart, intolerant mind, or snappish soul. And, his supporters, seeing no heresies whatsoever, have formed into a sort of Pretorian Guard to make sure that his imperial will is not to be thwarted. Thus, Müller, Schönborn, and the rest are to see to that outcome supposedly. But, such is far from the main point to be understood.
As was carefully proven, earlier in this article, an observably egotistical and degenerate prelate sits atop the papal throne pridefully and nastily defies any and all who would dare to say him nay. Some naively would make an appeal to, of all things, the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council and uselessly hope for what has been called “the reform of the reform.”
This cannot realistically ever be. Why so? Vatican II’s aftermath axiomatically thinks of itself as truly being, in fact, the ongoing permanent reform, sort of analogously like Leon Trotsky’s absurd ideal of the Permanent Revolution. Thus, many confused Catholics, also, cite Vatican II against Pope Francis’ errors without seeing any contradictions whatsoever, nor seeing the Hegelian Dialectic being present within neo-orthodox postconciliar thinking.
Pope John Paul II, through numerous encyclicals, etc. actually had tried that thrust at presumed reform, without any real success whatsoever. Error, ultimate error, can only be refuted, not reformed; the so-called Reformed Religion has empirically and intellectually proven its inherent failure through the easily observed and continuing multiplication of divergent Protestant sects and cults, many or, sometimes, most of which do claim (directly or indirectly) to be the only one true Church.
What has, by now, the ever attempted reform of the reform of the reform produced? Pope Francis. Need one say more?
The machinations of the Pontiff, a charismatic figure exalted by the press, are usually misunderstood or misinterpreted, due especially to poor catechesis, in a world terribly engulfed by rabid existentialism, pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, gestalt, and the overall relativism of situation ethics. The evil involved tends to be discounted as possibly coincidental or simply not intended. Such is not the case.
While the pagan ancients, as with Plato, thought that the doing of evil was because of an ignorant lack of knowledge of the good, Christianity realizes that people can, in fact, so willfully choose to do evil. Perniciousness and malevolence can be intentional, as the Pope’s demonstrated hatred of Catholicism qua orthodoxy is empirically palpable, which is, upon examination, an understatement. What is the danger?
There are consequences to having a heretical leader of the Church. Ironically, the best response to Francis is to be, in a sense, more papist than the Pope in defending the Papacy by admonishing the Vicar of Christ regarding his highly important papal responsibilities, duties, and obligations. The Holy Pontiff should not, and if he would what to spiritually and religiously avoid any sort of malevolence, ought not to do anything adverse to the Holy Magisterium of the Church, for Holy Scripture, Holy Magisterium, and Holy Tradition are never to be in conflict. This means within the proper context of authentic orthodoxy.1
The obvious conflict through the heretical opinions created by Francis is, therefore, logically opposed to the desired rightness and needed righteousness that ought to be responsibly exhibited by the Papacy, as to its vital prerogatives and privileges in defense of the Catholic Faith. If his mind were not so set upon the anomalous commission of evil, then he would readily recognize and firmly uphold these matters as being substantively congruent with affirming Catholicism; and, it would be reciprocal concerning the basis of the Papacy in its authoritative capacity for instructing the faithful; thus, the Vicar of Christ on earth is to be, by definition, the primary Shepherd of the entire flock of Christ for defending the Faith.
Having a mind consumed with sin, regarding the heretical notions that the Pontiff supports, makes him participate, directly and indirectly, in the moral destruction and spiritual rot of the Holy Office; this is by undermining its basis of being, with its implications and ramifications, as to empirically irresponsible conduct shown by the past unfortunate papal endorsement of the heretical exhortation promulgated so insensitively contrary to Church teachings, namely, the Amoris Laetitia. But, as to genuine Catholic truth, taken as a whole, it is joyless and perverse, cheerless and demented.
Repentance and renunciation should occur. Instead, the Pope has taken an entirely intransigent, fully intractable, attitude involving the condemnation and ongoing vilification of any objectors who oppose the heresies he favors, which bodes ill, of course, for the immediate future of the Church and, moreover, will have the sad presence of much long-term harm seen in its wake. But, Catholicism will survive, even if it gets as isolated to desperate places of refuge as is Iona, yet, those hardy Irish (and typically stubborn) monks of the early Middle Ages kept it yet alive against the savage barbarians. There will always remain a minority, a remnant, tenacious enough to strongly guard and save the Faith; and, if or when necessary, as with Iona, under conditions certainly far from being thought ideal.
Nonetheless, the elected papal monarch wishes to now run roughshod over any disruptive Catholic subjects of his realm with a vengeful monarchical disregard, which will corrupt the principle of monarchy by embracing a form of tyranny as he, thus, equally debases the Papacy as well. May God have mercy on his soul.2
The response to the Pope needs to alert him to the dangers and sorrows of tyrannizing over any of the faithful who wish to merely remind him of his important duty, obligations, and responsibilities concerning the ever requisite safeguarding of Catholicism from any doctrinal contamination or dissolution by deliberately perverting pastoral practice. Such is no small matter to consider, of course.
It needs to be critically recognized, therefore, that what he is consciously doing is, in fact, evil
his mind has been wrongly set upon the intended commission of such malevolence, wickedness, to then better clearly uphold the neo-Pelagianism, the heresy, so verifiably near and dear to his wicked heart and dreadful ambitions.
An indicatively salient point must be informatively made. One must, correctly, perceive here the active choice of measured malice, done on the part of Francis, to more perceptively gauge and intensely comprehend the repulsive fact that he really wishes to do evil, not that he is, supposedly, just being only unknowingly wayward, mischievous, or miscreant in some odd manner.
Almost all of his critics, overawed by the Holy Office of the Papacy, refuse to perceive the horrible truth, concede him the (false) idea that good intentions are involved, and actually excuse this Vicar of Christ; this is as if only mere peccadillos, slight failings, were involved in his noted perpetrated debasement efforts demonically directed against Catholicism, meaning all fundamental theological and religious orthodoxy, of course.
What is being heretically done by the Pope is not simply haphazard, incoherent, or uncoordinated by active intent. There is no rationally requisite requirement to so render him the assumed benefit of a doubt; his many words and actions are clear and verified, documented and definite, not obscure or uncertain. Too many times have his defenders said that he was supposedly misinterpreted or mistranslated to then better help cover up the truth about his malevolence and spite, pertaining to the attitudes and heretical opinions, by which he so wishes to revolutionize the Church toward a definitely neo-Protestant direction. 3
He, then, thinks that mere human will can determine what gets accepted or promulgated as to dogmatic Church teachings, not the true need to conform teachings to the will of God. Consequently, Francis, being so hubristic, perceives himself as the actual center or focus of the Church and its supreme head, not Jesus Christ.
This demonstrable fact should be fairly apparent, by now, except among the most naïve or misinformed Catholics unaware of perennial Church teachings or, perhaps, those who, basically, stand in (mindless) awe of the Bishop of Rome because of the sacred existence of the Holy Office itself. Yet, this necessarily creates dangerous distortions of perception and much attendant faulty knowledge of the authentic nature of what needs to be vitally known.
The Pope is not God on earth, only the Vicar of Christ, not any divine substitute in flesh, unlike, for instance, the Dalai Lama who is regarded, by his loyal followers, as being a god occupying a merely physical body at present. Admittedly, it is hard to absolutely sever perfectly the known office from the man concerning the Supreme Pontiff, however, he and all Catholics (for the assumption is that Francis still professes to be one) are both morally and spiritually obligated to defend the Faith; and, this is, logically, even more so for the supreme leader, the Shepherd, of the Faith for protecting the believers and, of course, for ultimately affirming the greater Glory of God.
Cardinal Burke’s aforementioned worthy effort of seeking an appropriate ecclesiastic forum by which to discipline and admonish the Pope would seem, given the current and observed degenerate state of the majority of the Church hierarchy, rather farfetched and nearly impossible, especially under present poor circumstances and the immediately foreseeable future. Few in the hierarchy, e. g., could fully comprehend and intellectually defend the imperative necessity of Catholicism’s ontological theology.4
However, with Pope Francis now being 80 years old and not an extremely healthy man with only one lung, the better alternative, in a more practical sense, is to lay the hopeful foundation, the prepared infrastructure, for positive actions consequent to the coming of the then next Bishop of Rome. Realism would, on the whole, appear to be needed unless some truly divine intervention may surprisingly arise to resolve the situation either amicably or, perhaps, more readily. Many prayers, penances, and sacrifices, however, would be needed for that possibility.
Without a minor miracle to spur on the normally reluctant hierarchy in the direction of faithful orthodoxy and with the added willingness to then defend it vigorously, nonetheless, there is little likelihood of any real basic success for effectively dissuading Francis and seeking a recantation and abjuration of the ugly heresies he so very strongly favors; it is, as such, a quite realistic assessment because the whole of Catholicism is ever greater than any pope.
The overall situation of the Church, however, will not be helped because most of the faithful are now really neo-Catholics supported in their beliefs by the neo-orthodoxy established through allegiance to the Second Vatican Council. Over several past generations, increasing degrees of relativism and situation ethics have been imbued into the consciousness of so many such that they cannot easily come to oppose, much less properly understand, arguments that would greatly support Catholic dogmas without question.
Catechesis among Catholics has been woefully deficient for many decades by now, the clergy has been dumbed down too in the Novus Ordo seminaries, and much religious thought slides toward either a general indifference or a willingness to simply tolerate what ought to be seen as intolerable heterodoxy. And, also, many who may think of themselves as being fairly orthodox Catholics will still come to side with the Pope out of a weary spiritual slough eager to avoid conflict, even for upholding the righteous Honor of God against the Pope.
None of those four above cited conditions, moreover, seems to be undergoing any massive change
any time soon. Ambiguities in the notably modernist teachings, furthermore, that have become fairly pervasive by now mean that few of them, in the Novus Ordo, can actually comprehend and recognize the exact foundations of the profound dispute, much less ever to come to a critical awareness of the seriousness involved. And, one may logically add, this is so suitably matched to and reinforced by the relativist attitudes freely, publicly, exhibited by Francis himself. What could today be clearer? The situation could be hardly worse.
He has a hardened heart that so nastily spurns all Christian charity toward his many sincere opponents in this matter who have a theocentric point of view, the ever legitimate desire to serve the Holy God, versus the Pope’s rather contemptuous anthropocentricism, meaning his neo-Pelagianism; that heresy has an inherent devotion to heterodoxy at all costs, and Francis will, therefore, fight for it with all the powers at his imperious command. His personal tenacity ought not to be ignorantly underestimated or, perhaps, moderately discounted concerning the corrupt nature of his both spiritually and woefully defective character.
Why would this be said? Those who may doubt this do not really know and correctly understand the feisty man Bergoglio who demands that such things must go his way and that his critics be shown, in effect, the highway. He is an old gutter fighter, known as such to people in Argentina, willing fully to brawl it out with enemies who has only contempt for gentlemanly manners or, to him, courteous affectations, when he engages people in struggle. A known supporter of Marxist Liberation Theology, which he is, could not think otherwise. Nor would he have any personal incentives, moreover, to do or act otherwise as long as he totally remains in power as the Pope of the whole Church.
In basic terms of sheer unadorned viciousness, therefore, Cardinal Burke is clearly outclassed and seems to be underestimating the kind of person, of the ruthless character, he is dealing with, meaning concerning this sly and cunning Servant of the Servants of Christ. Francis, of course, thinks that he has all the big cards in his hands and is going to play any of them needed and would not, moreover, ever hesitate to load the deck, whenever or wherever required to ultimately get his way, with a kind of neo-Protestantism.
No one should here naively doubt this harsh fact of reality qua current papal reality, for when he sets the Holy Magisterium in supposed opposition to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, he so then becomes fully God-defiant, not simply miscreant in thought and action. Let this be clear. Let no one doubt the truth. What is actually going on is the deliberate commission of mortal sins, which should be obvious beyond question. How may this be better understood and confirmed as to its veracity and certainty?
If Francis had to confront the preconciliar Church of the 19th century’s First Vatican Council, there would be no question whatsoever as to the logically assumed success of trying to control an aberrant or deviant pope. Today, however, such an attempted confrontation is, one so realistically suspects, at best problematic and, at the least, severely doubtful of any good fruition to just put the matter quite mildly.
The Pope will, as in the sad days of the Arian Heresy, call all his staunch opponents schismatics and, thus, claim that he is the true defender of the Faith, for it will take significant moral and spiritual courage to rightly defend needed orthodoxy during this crisis of faith.
For Francis, going too far is never really far enough to stray from Catholic dogmas to then better serve his notably wayward and too corrupt intentions; a mere figurative slap on the wrist cannot deter him from revolutionizing the Church into having a real anthropocentric orientation, meaning the worship of Man on earth, being that he is, in truth, a disciple of evil. As such, it is no major prediction here that he will become, given the predilection already exhibited for simplification, an iconoclast toward the end of his pontificate.
Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Conclusion
And so, Catholics enter still into the Third Millennium of the Roman Catholic Church, in this late second decade of the 21st century, with the real prospect of a schism, given the observably uncharitable and quite clearly intolerant attitude of the notably vindictive and visibly unforgiving Holy Pontiff.
Thus, neo-Pelagianism, reinforced by the Nietzschean transvaluation of values, is stridently in the saddle and is now confidently riding forth toward even yet greater infamies to come, while Pope Francis is in charge of the Church. Not to notice this salient fact is to be rather unfortunately blind to reality or, perhaps, simply naïve beyond belief where credulity itself becomes fairly utopian in inspiration.
The terribly both beleaguered and outnumbered forces of right orthodoxy and good human decency are, therefore, going to have to then become so righteously shrewd and, also, militantly prudent; this is when confronting such a formidable papal foe who is, as one perceives, adamantly determined to win, even at the sad cost of schism. Cardinal Burke, one reasonably suspects, must then somehow seize the moral high ground and use it to the fullest extent and advantage possible, whether Dubia or no Dubia.
This should be by publicly saying that all his criticisms are not at all personal but, rather, constructive and affirmative for, then, better acknowledging the true rights and responsibilities of the Papacy itself, not done for any attack upon the present occupant of the Holy Office. The arguments ought to be theological and religious, moral and ethical, not ever aimed for seeking any personal animadversions.
To help avoid the struggle from giving the unwanted appearance of a personal duel between Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis, a good tactic should be the skillful use of Bishop Athanasius Schneider as the main spokesman for an ecclesiastical and canonical inquiry into the uncharitable obstinacy of Francis. Flanking maneuvers are best, not a direct assault, as to the overall prudent and sagacious strategy to be employed in steadily mounting any growing pressure upon the notably stubborn Holy Father.
Of course, in the long-run there is always hope, either a Church council or, perhaps, a future pope will basically or fundamentally correct the errors of this era, for no individual aberrant pontiff guides fully the course of the ecclesiastical body; only the Holy Ghost, who sanctifies the Church, does that forever, not Francis. Heresies, inclusive of his odd version of neo-Protestantism, all eventually get intellectually crushed because they are lies, and only the truth can set men free, meaning (orthodox) Catholicism.5
There will be, no doubt, much short-term anguish and frustration, agony and distress, until eventually the wrongdoing has been deal with by the future triumph of orthodoxy, once again.
Athanasius contra mundum!
No comments:
Post a Comment